Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The problems of big bang theory. What are they?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 226 of 389 (628600)
08-11-2011 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by Portillo
08-11-2011 5:10 AM


Hi Portillo,
Just adding a bit to what Panda said, this partial quote from Whittaker that you plucked from some creationist website was part of an address at King's College in 1942, seven years before Hoyle even coined the term Big Bang. Way to be current.
Anyway, it appears that you believe that one of the problems with the Big Bang theory is that it doesn't tell us what came before. I doubt that Whittaker, had he not died over a half century ago, would agree with you that this is a problem for the Big Bang, if by that you mean that it calls into question whether the Big Bang really happened. But the question about what came before the Big Bang is a serious question that is receiving increasing attention from cosmologists these days.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Portillo, posted 08-11-2011 5:10 AM Portillo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Portillo, posted 08-12-2011 4:28 AM Percy has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 227 of 389 (628601)
08-11-2011 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by Portillo
08-11-2011 5:10 AM


We now know that the universe is not eternal and uncaused but had a beginning.
No, we don't know that. Most attempts at formulating "quantum gravity" corrections to the Big Bang, reveal that it wasn't "a beginning". So the question is open.
before the beginning of the universe there was no time, matter, physics, energy etc.
Obviously this makes no sense as there is no "before" if there is no time.
More later...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Portillo, posted 08-11-2011 5:10 AM Portillo has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 228 of 389 (628602)
08-11-2011 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by Panda
08-11-2011 5:36 AM


Could you please provide the full quote and context. I cannot seem to find an original in Google.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Panda, posted 08-11-2011 5:36 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Panda, posted 08-11-2011 9:33 AM Theodoric has replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 229 of 389 (628604)
08-11-2011 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by Theodoric
08-11-2011 8:55 AM


Theodoric writes:
Could you please provide the full quote and context. I cannot seem to find an original in Google.
The nearest I can find is:
quote:
There is no ground for supposing that matter (or energy, which is the same as matter) existed before this in an inert condition, and was in some way galvanised into activity at a certain instant: for what could have determined this instant rather than all the other instants of past eternity? It is simpler to postulate a creation ex nihilo, an operation of the Divine Will to constitute Nature from nothingness.
Edmund Whittaker: Physics and Philosophy
but it is still a single quote (but at least the website tries to explain the context).
I might be able to find a better source when I get home.
But since I was not the person using Whittaker's quote as support for my argument, I suspect that you have inadvertently replied to me, when you should be replying to Portillo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Theodoric, posted 08-11-2011 8:55 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Theodoric, posted 08-11-2011 10:05 AM Panda has seen this message but not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 230 of 389 (628605)
08-11-2011 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Panda
08-11-2011 9:33 AM


I asked you as I knew that Portillo just did a cut and paste from a fundy site. I was hoping you could provide the full context.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Panda, posted 08-11-2011 9:33 AM Panda has seen this message but not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(3)
Message 231 of 389 (628622)
08-11-2011 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Portillo
08-11-2011 5:10 AM


The "problem" would be what caused the universe to come into existence.
That is not a problem for the BB theory.
Let's use something more familiar to help you understand what we are trying to say. I think we both agree that a water molecule has a beginning and a finite existence. Science has found the answer to how water forms. It is the oxidation of hydrogen. Someone may ask where the oxygen and hydrogen come from. Well, oxygen comes from fusion inside of stars and hydrogen originates, for the most part, from the condensation of energy shortly after the Big Bang. Someone may then ask where the Big Bang came from, and lacking an aswer will claim that we really don't have an answer of where water comes from.
If you wanted to, you could bring every question in science back to what came before the BB, and where the singularity came from. This includes answers that you probably have no beef with, such as the origin of a water molecule. The BB is in the same category as the origin of water. The BB model explains how the universe expanded, how matter condensed from energy, how the universe cooled down, etc. Even if we lack an answer for where the universe came from we still have a great explanation of how the universe changed after it began, and that answer is the BB model.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Portillo, posted 08-11-2011 5:10 AM Portillo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Portillo, posted 08-22-2011 2:43 AM Taq has not replied

Portillo
Member (Idle past 4160 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 232 of 389 (628666)
08-12-2011 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Percy
08-11-2011 8:49 AM


quote:
Anyway, it appears that you believe that one of the problems with the Big Bang theory is that it doesn't tell us what came before. I doubt that Whittaker, had he not died over a half century ago, would agree with you that this is a problem for the Big Bang, if by that you mean that it calls into question whether the Big Bang really happened. But the question about what came before the Big Bang is a serious question that is receiving increasing attention from cosmologists these days.
Yes of course I mean what came before and caused the big bang not whether the big bang actually happened.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Percy, posted 08-11-2011 8:49 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Percy, posted 08-12-2011 6:52 AM Portillo has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 233 of 389 (628676)
08-12-2011 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by Portillo
08-12-2011 4:28 AM


Portillo writes:
Yes of course I mean what came before and caused the big bang not whether the big bang actually happened.
Then why are you raising the issue? Science agrees with you that its a very interesting question, but the thread's topic is about problems with the Big Bang. If you're raising the issue because you think it's a problem for the Big Bang theory then you're going to have to connect the dots for us and explain why you see it that way. The guy you quoted, Whittaker, wasn't raising the issue as a problem for the Big Bang.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Portillo, posted 08-12-2011 4:28 AM Portillo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Portillo, posted 08-22-2011 2:35 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Portillo
Member (Idle past 4160 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 234 of 389 (630028)
08-22-2011 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Percy
08-12-2011 6:52 AM


The universe could have come into existence with no cause, with a cause or it is eternal. Most of the evidence is pointing to the universe having a beginning at the big bang. But what caused it to come into existence. We know that every event has a cause and if the universe came to be then it is rational to believe that the universe had a cause.
So you can conclude that the universe came into existence from nothing and by nothing.
Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

And the conspiracy was strong, for the people increased continually - 2 Samuel 15:12

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Percy, posted 08-12-2011 6:52 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Portillo
Member (Idle past 4160 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 235 of 389 (630030)
08-22-2011 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by Taq
08-11-2011 12:30 PM


Are you saying that we shouldnt study how or why the universe came into existence? What existed before the big bang? Many scientists say that nothing existed. No time, matter, energy, chemicals. Nothing. Therefore nothing created the universe.

And the conspiracy was strong, for the people increased continually - 2 Samuel 15:12

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Taq, posted 08-11-2011 12:30 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Larni, posted 08-22-2011 3:38 AM Portillo has not replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 236 of 389 (630033)
08-22-2011 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by Portillo
08-22-2011 2:43 AM


What's wrong with nothing creating the universe?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Portillo, posted 08-22-2011 2:43 AM Portillo has not replied

Portillo
Member (Idle past 4160 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 237 of 389 (630043)
08-22-2011 5:15 AM


Everything that comes to be has a cause. Ill give you an example. 2 people are walking in the woods and they see a translucent ball. He looks to his friend and says where did that ball come from. The other person says I dont know, but it didnt just pop into existence out of nothing.
He then says, so you agree that this ball needs a cause? The other person says yes. But what if the ball is the size of a house does it still need a cause? He says yes. What if the ball is the size of the earth, does it need a cause? He says yes. Finally he says, what if the ball is the size of the universe, does it need a cause? He says, no its just there.
Thats not rational.

And the conspiracy was strong, for the people increased continually - 2 Samuel 15:12

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Annafan, posted 08-22-2011 5:53 AM Portillo has replied
 Message 239 by Pressie, posted 08-22-2011 7:02 AM Portillo has not replied
 Message 240 by Larni, posted 08-22-2011 8:24 AM Portillo has not replied
 Message 241 by Percy, posted 08-22-2011 8:30 AM Portillo has not replied

Annafan
Member (Idle past 4578 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


(1)
Message 238 of 389 (630050)
08-22-2011 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Portillo
08-22-2011 5:15 AM


Everything that comes to be has a cause.
So you don't like the idea that it possibly wouln't have a cause. But let's say that it turns out that it has indeed a cause. Say, "God". "God" caused the beginning of the Universe. I'm sure you would be delighted!
But what puzzles people like us the most, is why you suddenly would stop asking for further causes. What caused God? If you aren't interested in knowing, WHY aren't you? If God doesn't NEED a cause, then WHY doesn't he (after all you just argued that EVERYTHING has a cause?)? WHY would a Universe absolutely need a cause, while "God" wouldn't? Why the double standard? HOW does it help you to assume that "God" caused the Universe? Does it give you special insight? Do you now know more than the rest of us? What would it tell you about "God" himself? Are you sure it's not just another word for "Universe"? Does it even make sense to make a distinction between the words when you have ZERO additional information beyond just putting a label on whatever supposedly happened at the beginning of the Universe?
Did you ever sit back for a second and consider these things?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Portillo, posted 08-22-2011 5:15 AM Portillo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Portillo, posted 08-28-2011 2:24 AM Annafan has not replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 239 of 389 (630053)
08-22-2011 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Portillo
08-22-2011 5:15 AM


Everything that comes to be has a cause.
No it doesn't. Do you know what quantum mechanics entails?
Ill give you an example. 2 people are walking in the woods and they see a translucent ball. He looks to his friend and says where did that ball come from. The other person says I dont know, but it didnt just pop into existence out of nothing.
A ball in the wood stands out from the surroundings. Anyone who gives the answer you gave has to be a bit mentally ill. No sane person would say that.
He then says, so you agree that this ball needs a cause?
Of coarse someone made it. That's how you can distinguish the ball from the 'woods'. You can immediately see that the ball does not fit into the surroundings. They are different.
The other person says yes.
No, the other person says: "Of coarse someone made it. That's how you can distinguish the ball from the 'woods'. They are different."
But what if the ball is the size of a house does it still need a cause? He says yes.
Stupid answer. Not all people are as intellectually challenged as creationists, remember. I would answer: "If" the ball was made out of cheese, then what?"
What if the ball is the size of the earth, does it need a cause? He says yes.
Why would he say that? "If" the earth was also made out of plastic, maybe.
Finally he says, what if the ball is the size of the universe, does it need a cause? He says, no its just there.
You can't compare, as balls were made by humans. The earth not. The universe is not. Remember, you can distinguish a naturallay occuring object from an artificial (made) one.
Thats not rational.
Your straw man of an argument isn't. The fact is that you can distinguish between a ball, which was made by humans, and trees, not made by humans, tells us that your example is flawed and doesn't relate to reality. Apart from that, trees propagate all on their own. If you walk in the woods, you can see that. Balls don't.
Anyway, if everything needs a cause, who caused your god? Who caused the 'maker' of you god? Who caused the maker of the maker of your god? Or are you going to use special pleading as an 'argument'?
Edited by Pressie, : Changed sentences and words

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Portillo, posted 08-22-2011 5:15 AM Portillo has not replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 240 of 389 (630062)
08-22-2011 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Portillo
08-22-2011 5:15 AM


I have to agree with Annafan.
If everything needs a cause as per your stipulation any god you invoke would also need a cause. You can't have it both ways.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Portillo, posted 08-22-2011 5:15 AM Portillo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Huntard, posted 08-22-2011 8:36 AM Larni has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024